Microsoft Would Settle For The Children

The news from MSNBC is that Microsoft wants to, er, settle for the children. Take that whichever way you want. They propose to settle civil anti-trust cases (not the DoJ suit) with a $1.1 billion (retail value) spanking (they have $36 billion in the bank), consisting of free computer goodies to our nation's poorest schools (the first hit's free, kids). I'm sure Microsoft will upgrade those old computers to keep them current, in perpetuity, for free, out of the kindness of their hearts, but in an apparent oversight that was left out of the news report. Of that $1.1 billion, $0.9 billion will be software presumably valued at whatever Microsoft wants to charge (see "monopoly"). For hardware and (laughable) training/support costs, Microsoft will be docked three weeks' worth of interest on their cashpile; they will seek matching funds for the remainder, I am not making this up. Some lawyers opposed this but "concluded that Microsoft's monopoly already is so pervasive that students would have to learn to use these products anyway in the workplace." Update: 11/20 21:22 GMT by M : Heh. Red Hat offers an alternative to Microsoft's settlement proposal - you provide hardware, we'll provide software.

Comments

Re:Let me get this straight....

[Pierre]

What do you mean "at what point does this stop being MS's fault"?

They broke the law. In a court of law they were found guilty. It never stops being their fault - they did it.

Can you really not understand why people are upset by the proposal that punishes a company that has been found guilty of breaking the laws of the United States with behavior reminiscent of the crime?

I'm not opposed to the idea of helping these schools, but these are separate issues. Fine let's decide to give the schools the settlement. Give them 1.7 billion in cash and let them maintain their buildings, pay teachers more (i.e. let them decide what they need).

What else are they going to throw in free downloads of windows media player?

Re:Nice title.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are a monopoly. As punishment, you must provide free software to the public schools, so that you can spread even further. Bad Microsoft! Now get back to replacing those foreign operating systems."

The government(s) should actually settle on this case, and let MSFT donate $1.1 billion to the school systems of software. But demand that it be their competitor's software (preferrably linux and other commercially-available Open-Source software). For example, let MSFT donate approx 10,000-20,000 boxed sets of either RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, etc, to the existing PC's in the schools. This will put significant cash flow in the high-tech industry, help further their competitors, and actually punish MSFT.

10,000 copies of linux could be divided as one official copy to each school or school district. they can then make legal copies within the schools. This can actually be more useful and efficient than you'd realize. If each school had one computer running linux, teachers and school computer folks can begin to assess how to run windows software under WINE, and other educational linux software. eventuallly this would save the school a bundle as they realize how to migrate their systems.

Of course there would be lots of details as to how the $1.1 billion would be distributed amongst MSFT's competitors. But there is NO WAY MSFT should be "punished" by allowing them to extend their monopoly further.

Redhat Proposed this Settlement

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

That MS Put all the money into hardware and RedHat will provide endless updates of free software

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html

Re:Simple ... when ...

[Billly Gates]

Good point. The OEMs must sell windows period! It was only untill recently that the doj forced Microsoft to change this. The loophole is that each oem must sell a different computer model for each OS distributed with it. For example a specific dell model which comes with Windows must not come with linux. Dell would have to design a different desktop to distribute linux with it.

Basically the original comment stated that "At what point does this top being Microsoft's fault and start being the fault of the millions of users? If people didn't buy the software or use the software, a monopoly would not exist! ". This evidence proves that consumers had no choice before 1998.

Actually users do not buy the Operating System. YOUR OEM DOES. Infact the EULA is not written for consumers but for oems. This is why the BSA only goes after businesses and oem's and not individuals. Individuals never agree to the EULA unless they are doing a manual install. Mainly coroporate clients. Infact it is a monopoly if you strangle competitors by controlling the distribution. This is precisely what MS did. Rockafeller started his whole monopoly by buying out train companies. With distribution under control he took over the whole market by charging sky high rates for competitors oil so his was always cheaper and standard oil would get a profit wether a consumer bought oil from him or someone else. This is really not that different then Microsoft's deals with the OEM's.